User:Meet4145/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ghost followers

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have an open account in Instagram and I see some very weird accounts that follow me and I don't even know who are they. When I was scrolling through the social media category. I saw "Ghost followers" and it caught my attention as I already know the topic and I thought that I might be interested in it.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

And it clearly explained and people can easily understand by reading first two lines.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Easy to understand. It does have one brief description of buying followers.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)




 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?



Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?




 * Is the content up-to-date?




 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
 * Is the article neutral?

No bias.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?




 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?



Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

And they left note of why they did them and entered the correct data.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?




 * Are the sources current?




 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)




 * Check a few links. Do they work?



Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?




 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?




 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?



Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?




 * Are images well-captioned?




 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?




 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?



Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Nothing else.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Nothing is ignored.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

Not too good. Just alright


 * What are the article's strengths?




 * How can the article be improved?




 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?



Meet4145 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)